Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
COVID-19 Check-in 2.0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I wouldn't put much stock into this group. First, this was a video put together by breitbart and the America's frontline doctors group does not disclose who owns or funds the group, but it is known they work directly with the Tea party patriots. Of the doctors listed in their group none of them are infectious disease experts.
@texdawg I wanted to make a couple of points on something you brought up, even though I can't find it anymore. This is getting very little discussion in the media, but it is absolutely huge imho: the three biggest hotspots right now are TX, FL and CA. All three have or will soon pass NY in total cases. Also, those three states have the most seniors (65+). In fact, those three states have right at 25% of all the seniors in the US--one in four in just three states, about 13 million people! The one thing most everyone agrees on is that age is probably the biggest risk factor for mortality in CV 19. So, we should see a higher death rate in these states. We don't. All #s rounded and from Worldometer.
Cases Deaths
CA 467K 8.55K
FL 442 6.12K
TX 404K 5.88K
NY 441K 32.7K
NY has around a third of the cases of the big three combined, yet it has over 50% more deaths! And consider that there are over 4X more seniors in those states. They are more at risk. Not only that, but if you add the cases from the big five in Europe--Spain, UK, Italy, Germany, and France, you get a number very close to our big three. Europe ~1.26MM cases; TX/FL/CA 1.31MM cases. Yet, Europe's big 5, even though they have slightly less cases, have lost just under 150,000 souls to CV 19--more than 7X our big three with higher cases. Perhaps the deadliest place on earth for cases to fatalities is Connecticut, where just under 10% of the positives died. You can see that our big three are currently at about 1.5%, or one sixth of CT's rate. Now, many of the cases are active in the big three, so the numbers will likely get worse, but they shouldn't get anywhere close to NY or CT or Europe in rates. There could be a number of explanations, but I think it is fair to say the disease is much less deadly in summer.
That's what I thought, an unsubstantiated political ad hominem that demonstrates a confirmed case of TDS.
Cool
How do you know any of the numbers are correct if you don't actually test the people? Better question, why even publish something like this without accurate data?
How is it not accurate? They looked at high risk exposures and found that giving HCQ had no effect on the development of COVID-19 symptoms. Do you think they are lying about people developing symptoms?
Great points and thank you for the info. Maybe Vit D helps
Because they didn't test either group to see if they actually had CV. They looked at symptoms. I can't tell you how many people I know who were sure they had the disease, only to test negative. Seriously, Yale, you are smarter than this. If we were going to test a drug, wouldn't we have to use a validated test to determine whether the disease was present? How much more with Covid! This disease can mimic half of the diseases in the textbook.
"Four infectious disease physicians who were unaware of the trial-group assignments reviewed symptomatic participants to generate a consensus with respect to whether their condition met the case definition."
The study was rigorous and carried out very well. It doesn't fit your bias so you make up reasons to malign it.
I could seriously care less on HCQ. I do wish we could find something that worked, but it is all empirical to me. I will objectively consider both sides. I don't see anything that works great--remdesivir, HCQ, nothing appears to be a knockout punch. Four physicians reviewing symptoms is wholly inadequate. The results are worthless because they didn't actually test the people to see whether they had the disease. Remarkable because the technology is there to do it. This one won't age well imho. I'm shocked that you would defend the results. When you say RCTs prove this or that, I will have to discount it because you are defending this study instead of criticizing it.
just take the L man. It seems you just want to take the opposite stance of everything I say because I won't go along with vitamin D cures everything stance you hold dear. The study was carried out well and the four physicians who specialize in infectious disease are definitely enough. In the absence of testing what else could you want? Yeah, PCR testing is best, but the authors went to great lengths in its absence. I agree remdesivir is definitely not a panacea. It has some marginal benefits, but is by no means a wonder drug.
Ah there it is with that last line. You desperately want me to be wrong about this so you can hold it up as an example when I criticize vit D studies. Sad.
Fwiw I haven't read the study, but it's possible that the purpose wasn't to prevent infection.
Could have been a trial to prevent the development of severe and life threatening symptoms, which would then make sense to have clinicians grade the symptoms.
This one was specifically for prophylaxis and the authors note they thought participants would have better access to testing, but in its absence they went on development of symptoms independently reviewed by four infectious disease physicians who were blinded to the groups.
There was a separate trial that looked at progression of mild symptoms to severe symptoms that also showed HCQ had no effect.
There you go projecting again, Yale! When you lose an argument based on data or logic, you place words and motives in your debate opponent's mouth and then pretend to argue/lecture against them. It makes you look bad. I say that as a fellow Dawg fan. You can take it or leave it.
I could care less what you think about vitamin D. I will listen to reason, and I don't fear vigorous debate. You haven't said anything I didn't already know on the subject and nothing you said threatens the hypothesis in the least. But, as I've repeatedly said, much more research has to be done to say whether it helps or not. You put words in my mouth there, too, by saying "vitamin D cures everything." That's what you do. Finally, the L talk from you tells me that's what is important to you! It isn't to me. My point with HCQ is that the jury is still out. Everybody needs to keep an open mind and let quality research make the call, not the debate team. The Yale epidemiologist's oped is certainly a strong counterpoint to your position.
Wouldn't say all their chips but treatment before a vaccine is found. I know several local Doctors using it and can't believe they are the only ones. But then again most people recover so maybe it doesn't help.
The jury is not out on HCQ. We know it doesn't work.
If they are testing whether HCQ works to prevent CV symptoms, the first thing that must be established is whether participants actually got CV 19, no? This disease can present with a host of different symptoms. If you are doing a drug test on a disease, you have to be able to test for that disease, especially one that may have no symptoms at all.
This is sad man. You go on and on about being this person of reason and vigorous debate while attacking sound science and holding up pseudo science and quackery as the pinnacle of medicine. Not once have you said you will withhold judgement on vitamin D until more rigorous studies have been performed. You looked at correlational studies and immediately touted it as a treatment.
So if a group does a study and gives everyone HCQ and says none of them get the Virus without actually testing them you would be OK wit that. It is like these Doctors I know that say it works but you shoot it down because a group tested it without actually testing.
The good news is.....HCQ isn't OTC.
If your personal physician believes it will help.....and you trust your Dr......they have the right to prescribe it.
If your physician doesn't believe in it......then he/she probably won't prescribe it.......and will suggest some other course.
At least there is still a choice and not some outside organization deciding what can or can't be done.
HCQ is an FDA approved medication that has been around for years.
Surely we can all agree that as long as the physician and patient have a choice whether to use or not use an FDA approved drug.....without the govt getting involved. Alls good.....doubt anyone has an issue with that.